You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
A practical guide to using the climate law to get cheaper solar panels, heat pumps, and more.

Today marks the one year anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act, the biggest investment in tackling climate change the United States has ever made. The law consists of dozens of subsidies to help individuals, households, and businesses adopt clean energy technologies. Many of these solutions will also help people save money on their energy bills, reduce pollution, and improve their resilience to disasters.
But understanding how much funding is available for what, and how to get it, can be pretty confusing. Many Americans are not even aware that these programs exist. A poll conducted by The Washington Post and the University of Maryland in late July found that about 66% of Americans say they have heard “little” or “nothing at all” about the law’s incentives for installing rooftop solar panels, and 77% have heard little or nothing about subsidies for heat pumps. This tracks similar polling that Heatmap conducted last winter, suggesting not much has changed since then.
Below is Heatmap’s guide to the IRA’s incentives for cutting your carbon footprint at home. If you haven’t heard much about how the IRA can help you decarbonize your life, this guide is for you. If you have heard about the available subsidies, but aren’t sure how much they are worth or where to begin, I’ll walk you through it. (And if you’re looking for information about the electric vehicle tax credit, my colleague at Heatmap Robinson Meyer has you covered with this buyer’s guide.)
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
There’s funding for almost every solution you can think of to make your home more energy efficient and reduce your fossil fuel use, whether you want to install solar panels, insulate your attic, replace your windows, or buy electric appliances. If you need new wiring or an electrical panel upgrade before you can get heat pumps or solar panels, there’s some money available for that, too.
The IRA created two types of incentives for home energy efficiency improvements: Unlimited tax credits that will lower the amount you owe when you file your taxes, and $8.8 billion in rebates that function as up-front discounts or post-installation refunds on equipment and services.
The tax credits are available now, but the rebates are not. The latter will be administered by states, which must apply for funding and create programs before the money can go out. The Biden administration began accepting applications at the end of July and expects states to begin rolling out their programs later this year or early next.
The home tax credits are available to everyone that owes taxes. The rebates, however, will have income restrictions (more on this later).
“The Inflation Reduction Act is not a limited time offer,” according to Ari Matusiak, the CEO of the nonprofit advocacy group Rewiring America. The rebate programs will only be available until the money runs out, but, again, none of them have started yet. Meanwhile, there’s no limit on how many people can claim the tax credits, and they’ll be available for at least the next decade. That means you don’t need to rush and replace your hot water heater if you have one that works fine. But when it does break down, you’ll have help paying for a replacement.
You might want to hold off on buying new appliances or getting insulation — basically any improvements inside your house. There are tax credits available for a lot of this stuff right now, but you’ll likely be able to stack them with rebates in the future.
However, if you’re thinking of installing solar panels on your roof or getting a backup battery system, there’s no need to wait. The rebates will not cover those technologies.
A few other caveats: There’s a good chance your state, city, or utility already offers rebates or other incentives for many of these solutions. Check with your state’s energy office or your utility to find out what’s available. Also, it can take months to get quotes and line up contractors to get this kind of work done. If you want to be ready when the rebates hit, it’s probably a good idea to do some of the legwork now.
If you do nothing else this year, consider getting a professional home energy audit. This will cost several hundred dollars, depending on where you live, but you’ll be able to get 30% off or up to $150 back under the IRA’s home improvement tax credit. Doing an audit will help you figure out which solutions will give you the biggest bang for your buck, and how to prioritize them once more funding becomes available. The auditor might even be able to explain all of the existing local rebate programs you’re eligible for.
The Internal Revenue Service will allow you to work with any home energy auditor until the end of this year, but beginning in 2024, you must hire an auditor with specific qualifications in order to claim the credit.
Let’s start with what’s inside your home. In addition to an energy audit, the Energy Efficiency Home Improvement Credit offers consumers 30% off the cost (after any other subsidies, and excluding labor) of Energy Star-rated windows and doors, insulation, and air sealing.
There’s a maximum amount you can claim for each type of equipment each year:
$600 for windows
$500 for doors
$1,200 for air sealing and insulation
The Energy Efficiency Home Improvement Credit also covers heat pumps, heat pump water heaters, and electrical panel upgrades, including the cost of installation for those systems. You can get:
$2,000 for heat pumps
$600 for a new electrical panel
Yes, homeowners can only claim up to $3,200 per year under this program until 2032.
Also, one downside to the Energy Efficiency Home Improvement Credit is that it does not carry over. If you spend enough on efficiency to qualify for the full $3,200 in a given year, but you only owe the federal government $2,000 for the year, your bill will go to zero and you will miss out on the remaining $1,200 credit. So it could be worth your while to spread the work out.
The other big consumer-oriented tax credit, the Residential Clean Energy Credit, offers homeowners 30% off the cost of solar panels and solar water heaters. It also covers battery systems, which store energy from the grid or from your solar panels that you can use when there’s a blackout, or sell back to your utility when the grid needs more power.
The subsidy has no limits, so if you spend $35,000 on solar panels and battery storage, including labor, you’ll be eligible for the full 30% refund, or $10,500. The credit can also be rolled over, so if your tax liability that year is only $5,000, you’ll be able to claim more of it the following year, and continue doing so until you’ve received the full value.
Geothermal heating systems are also covered under this credit. (Geothermal heat pumps work similarly to regular heat pumps, but they use the ground as a source and sink for heat, rather than the ambient air.)
Here’s what we know right now. The IRA funded two rebate programs. One, known as the Home Energy Performance-Based Whole House Rebates, will provide discounts to homeowners and landlords based on the amount of energy a home upgrade is predicted to save.
Congress did not specify which energy-saving measures qualify — that’s something state energy offices will decide when they design their programs. But it did cap the total amount each household could receive, based on income. For example, if your household earns under 80% of the area median income, and you make improvements that cut your energy use by 35%, you’ll be eligible for up to $8,000. If your household earns more than that, you can get up to $4,000.
There’s also the High-Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Program, which will provide discounts on specific electric appliances like heat pumps, an induction stove, and an electric clothes dryer, as well as a new electrical panel and wiring. Individual households can get up to $14,000 in discounts under this program, although there are caps on how much is available for each piece of equipment. This money will only be available to low- and moderate-income households, or those earning under 150% of the area median income.
Renters with a household income below 150% of the area median income qualify for rebates on appliances that they should be able to install without permission from their landlords, and that they can take with them if they move. For example, portable appliances like tabletop induction burners, clothes dryers, and window-unit heat pumps are all eligible for rebates.
It’s also worth noting that there is a lot of funding available for multifamily building owners. If you have a good relationship with your landlord, you might want to talk to them about the opportunity to make lasting investments in their property. Under the performance-based rebates program, apartment building owners can get up to $400,000 for energy efficiency projects.
For the most part, yes. But the calculus gets tricky when it comes to heat pumps.
Experts generally agree that no matter where you live, switching from an oil or propane-burning heating system or electric resistance heaters to heat pumps will lower your energy bills. Not so if you’re switching over from natural gas.
Electric heat pumps are three to four times more efficient than natural gas heating systems, but electricity is so much more expensive than gas in some parts of the country that switching from gas to a heat pump can increase your overall bills a bit. Especially if you also electrify your water heater, stove, and clothes dryer.
That being said, Rewiring America estimates that switching from gas to a heat pump will lower bills for about 60% of households. Many utilities offer tools that will help you calculate your bills if you make the switch.
The good news is that all the measures I’ve discussed in this article are expected to cut carbon emissions and pollution, even if most of your region’s electricity still comes from fossil fuels. For some, that might be worth the monthly premium.
Tax Credit #1 offers 30% off the cost of energy audits, windows, doors, insulation, air sealing, heat pumps, electrical panels, with a $3200-per-year allowance and individual item limits.
Tax Credit #2 offers 30% off the cost of solar panels, solar water heaters, batteries, and geothermal heating systems.
Rebate Program #1 will offer discounts on whole-home efficiency upgrades depending on how much they reduce your energy use, with an $8,000 cap for lower-income families and a $4,000 cap for everyone else.
Rebate Program #2 is only for low- and moderate- income households, and will offer discounts on specific electric appliances, with a $14,000 cap.
Read more about the Inflation Reduction Act:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The group’s latest World Energy Outlook reflects the sharp swerve in U.S. policy over the past year.
The United States is different when it comes to energy and fossil fuels. While it’s no longer the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, no other country combines the United States’ production and consumptive capacity when it comes to oil — and, increasingly, natural gas. And no other country has made such a substantial recent policy U-turn in the past year, turning against renewables deployment at the same time as it is seeing electricity demand leap up thanks to data centers.
All of this is mirrored in the International Energy Agency’s 2025 World Energy Outlook, released Wednesday, which reflects a stark portrait of how America’s development of artificial intelligence and natural gas has made it distinct from its global peers. In combination, the effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and the U.S.’s world-leading artificial intelligence development have meaningfully altered the group’s forecasts of global fossil fuel usage and emissions.
Much of the report compares two different scenarios for global energy usage and emissions — one looking at what governments are actually doing, and the other at what they say they want to do. The difference between the two is in the pace of the renewables buildout, and especially the pace at which fossil fuels’ place in the energy supply is wound down, if it is at all.
For example, the Current Policies Scenario (the stricter scenario) shows “demand for oil and natural gas continu[ing] to grow to 2050,” while the Stated Policies Scenario, or STEPS (the more optimistic one) shows oil use flattening “around 2030.” But in both cases, “gas demand continues growing into the 2030s, due mainly to changes in U.S. policies and lower gas prices.”

Even in the more optimistic outlook, natural gas use peaks later than it did in earlier forecasts. In 2035, the IEA projects, gas output will be 350 billion cubic meters greater than it projected last year, which is roughly equal to the annual gas production of Texas — and that’s in the optimistic scenario. “Three-quarters of this is for electricity generation, mainly in the United States, Japan and the Middle East, and reflects higher electricity demand and slower progress in adding renewables to the generation mix than projected,” the report says.
But the U.S. is not the whole story — the tide of renewable deployment continues apace. The clean energy analytics group Ember argues that the report’s “downgrades on clean growth in the U.S. are offset by rises in other countries,” especially as electric vehicles grow in popularity everywhere else. While the STEPS forecast shows a 30% drop in renewables capacity compared to last year’s projection in 2035 in the US (and a 60% drop in EVs on the road in 2035), “there are 20% more EVs projected in emerging markets outside China and the renewables forecast was also upgraded outside the U.S,” Ember said in a statement.
Ember attributes this to an “increasing focus on energy security,” with more countries following China in electrifying broader swathes of their economies in order to reduce their dependence on fossil fuel imports like natural gas, coal, and oil — including from the United States.
Similarly, Ember is sanguine about artificial intelligence throwing off projections for the wind-down of fossil fuels, which the IEA has and continues to portray generally as largely a U.S. phenomenon.
The IEA estimates that over 85% of global data center capacity growth will take place in the United States, China, and Europe, and that data centers will be responsible for only 6% to 10% of electricity demand growth in the EU and China through 2030. In the U.S., however, they’re responsible for about half of projected growth.
But it’s not just data centers that are causing the IEA to revise its figures. The IEA upped its forecast for electricity use in 2035 by 4% compared to last year, which amounts to some 1,700 terawatt-hours, a bit south of India’s annual electricity generation today. The group attributes this upward move in its forecast not just to “electricity demand to serve data centres” — which dominates discussion of energy use and climate change — but also to “higher demand for air conditioning in the Middle East and North Africa.”
While the economic benefits of artificial development are still necessarily speculative — with trillions of dollars of investment leading us potentially to a singularity of exponentially increasing technological development, machine-led human extinction, or somewhere in between — the benefits of air conditioning are far less so. With increased AC usage, even as temperature rises, heat-related mortality could fall.
And as the Global South heats and grows economically, its demand for and ability to procure air conditioning will grow, leading to higher energy usage and putting more pressure on the climate. The IEA figures square with another recent report from the climate and energy think tank Rhodium Group, which predicts a rise in emissions after 2060 due to economic development in the Global South.
In short, the energy consumption that feeds economic development all over the world is making the hottest parts of the world hotter while also enabling them to use more energy to cool their homes. At the same time, the richest parts of the world are increasing their electricity usage — and therefore their emissions — in order to develop a technology they hope will supercharge economic growth. The climate hangs in the balance.
After years of planning, the Tropical Forests Forever Facility has so far failed to take root.
In selecting a location for this year’s United Nations climate conference, host country Brazil chose symbolism over sense. Belém, the site of this year’s summit, is perched on the edge of the Amazon rainforest. The setting is meant to foreground the importance of nature in fighting climate change — despite the city’s desperately inadequate infrastructure for housing the tens of thousands of attendees the conference draws.
That mismatch of intention and resources has also played out in the meeting rooms of the gathering, known as COP30. The centerpiece of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s agenda was meant to be the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, an international finance scheme to raise at least $2 billion per year to fund forest conservation and restoration. After an inauspicious launch in which presumed supporters of the facility failed to put up any actual financing, however, it’s unclear whether the TFFF will have a chance to prove it can work.
Deforestation rates have hardly budged globally since 2021, despite more than 100 countries signing a pledge that year to halt and reverse deforestation and land degradation within the decade. The world lost more than 8 million hectares of forest to deforestation last year, causing the release of more than 4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — nearly as much as the entire U.S. energy sector.
First proposed by the Brazilian government in Dubai at COP28, the TFFF was devised to deliver a more consistent source of funding to countries in the global south for forest conservation that would not depend on foreign aid budgets or be vulnerable to the ups and downs of the carbon market.
The plan involves setting up a fund with money borrowed from wealthier countries and private investors at low interest rates and invested in publicly traded bonds from emerging markets and developing economies that command higher interest rates. After paying back investors, the revenue generated by the spread — roughly a 3% return, if all goes to plan — would be paid out in annual lump sums to developing countries that have managed to keep deforestation at bay. Participating countries would have the right to spend the proceeds as they choose, so long as the money goes to support forests. At least 20% of the funds would also have to be set aside for indigenous peoples.
Brazil lined up substantial support for the idea ahead of this year’s launch. Six potential investor countries — France, Germany, Norway, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States — as well as five potential beneficiaries — Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Indonesia, and Malaysia — joined a steering committee to help shape the development of the fund. The Brazilian government ultimately proposed a fundraising target of $25 billion from the sponsor countries, with the idea to attract about $100 billion from private investors, for a total of $125 billion to get the fund off the ground.
Once the fund started generating revenue, private investors would be paid out first, sponsor countries second, and forested countries last, with the $25 billion serving as insurance to the private investors should the emerging market bond issuers default on their payments. The fund itself would be managed by the World Bank, while a separate entity would govern payments made to forested countries.
While many in the international environmental community were enthusiastic about the plan — especially as a shift away from controversial carbon markets — some raised alarms.
Max Alexander Matthey, a German economics PhD student studying international finance, first saw a presentation on TFFF at COP29 and was baffled by its simplicity. “If it was that easy to make this 3% on borrowed money, why wouldn’t everyone else be doing it?” he recalled thinking at the time. After digging into the Brazilian government’s financial analysis and doing some of his own, Matthey came to believe that the fund’s proponents had underestimated the risk inherent to the investment strategy, as well as the cost of managing the $125 billion fund, he told me.
The whole reason these emerging market bonds command a higher interest rate, Matthey explained, is because they are riskier. If and when countries default on their debts, whether due to global financial shocks like pandemics or wars, or simple mismanagement, the “free money” available for forests will dry up. “These 3% are not up for grabs,” he told me. “They compensate for actual risk and defaults that will happen over time.”
The TFFF was designed to create an incentive for countries with tropical forests to invest in policies and programs to protect forests — to hire rangers to prevent illegal deforestation, to pay farmers not to raze their forests, to implement fire prevention strategies. “They have to heavily invest,” Matthey told me. “If we as the Global North say, Well, thanks for investing large shares of your budget into rainforest protection, but you won’t get any money from our side because financial markets turned the wrong way, that’s just not how you build trust.”
Matthey outlined his analysis in a Substack post in September with University of Calgary economist Aidan Hollis. They found that the JP Morgan EMBI index, which tracks emerging market sovereign bonds, has seen regular downturns of between 18 and 32 percentage points over the past two decades. In the case of the TFFF, a single 20-point loss would wipe out the $25 billion in sponsor debt “and halt rainforest flows, possibly before they even begin,” they wrote.
The energy research firm BloombergNEF seems to agree. In a report published last week outlining the state of international biodiversity finance ahead of COP30, BNEF forecast there would be “little progress” on the TFFF. “The 3% spread is not a money faucet, but a risk premium; studies on the TFFF appear not to have properly conducted risk analyses,” the report said, warning that in effect, the scheme would eat up development finance just to absorb private investor losses.
Just prior to that report’s release, confidence in the TFFF appeared to dip. Brazil’s finance minister lowered his fundraising ambition for the facility to $10 billion by 2026. A few days later, on the eve of the launch, Bloomberg News reported that the United Kingdom would not be contributing to the fund after the country’s treasury department warned it could not afford the investment, despite its significant involvement in the fund’s design.
Following the launch, Indonesia and Portugal each committed $1 billion, while Norway pledged $3 billion, although only if the fund successfully secures at least $10 billion. France also promised €500 million, or just over half a billion dollars, while Germany said it would contribute “significantly,” although it hasn’t said how much yet. All in all, countries committed just $5.5 billion above Brazil’s own initial $1 billion commitment — with at least $3 billion of that contingent on further fundraising.
Andrew Deutz, the managing director for global policy and partnerships at the World Wildlife Fund, which has also been heavily involved in developing the TFFF, assured me this was not the disappointment it appeared to be.
"I look at what just happened last week as validation that the model can work and that countries have confidence in it,” Deutz said. He pointed to the fact that 53 countries, including 19 potential investors, have endorsed the scheme. “A bunch of sponsor countries who haven’t been that engaged said, We like this idea, and I think that creates the opportunity and the momentum that we can get one or two more rounds of capitalization at least.” Deutz was bullish that Germany would come to the table with a pledge between $1 billion and $3 billion, and that the UK would “get guilted in” shortly. He expects to see additional pledges at the World Bank’s Spring Meetings next April, and a few more at the UN General Assembly next September.
As for criticisms of the fund’s investment strategy, he brushed them off, arguing that the risk was "quantifiable and manageable.” He has faith in the TFFF’s modeling showing that the fund’s managers will be able to earn high enough returns to pay back investors and still generate enough funds to pay tropical forest countries.
Charles Barber, the director of natural resources governance and policy at the World Resources Institute was more cautious on both fronts. “We’re glad it’s got as far as it has, but there’s a whole lot of questions that will need to be answered to really get it up,” he told me. Barber saw arguments both for and against the risky investment strategy, but he was skeptical that a starting point of $10 billion would be enough to attract sufficient private investment or give tropical forest countries enough of an incentive to participate.
Matthey has called the idea of a scaled-down TFFF a “worst-case scenario for everyone involved,” due to the high fixed costs of managing the fund, monitoring deforestation, administering the proceeds, etc. The potential payouts to forested countries would be so diminished as to amount to a “rounding error” rather than a true incentive, he wrote.
Deutz told me the TFFF’s architects always expected there to be a three- to four-year ramp-up period. If the fund gets one or two more rounds of capitalization, “we’ll see if it works — and then, assuming it works, you can keep adding to it,” he said. “This is something new and different, so it might take us a little while to prove it out and for people to get comfortable.”
Leading Light can’t move forward, a legal counsel wrote to state regulators.
Another offshore wind project on the East Coast is being quietly killed.
Legal counsel for the Leading Light Wind offshore project filed a letter on Nov. 7 to the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities informing the regulator it no longer sees any way to complete construction and wants to pull the plug.
“The Board is well aware that the offshore wind industry has experienced economic and regulatory conditions that have made the development of new offshore wind projects extremely difficult,” counsel Colleen Foley wrote in the letter, which was reviewed by Heatmap News. “Like many other industry participants, the Company has faced a series of obstacles in the development of the LLW Project including supply chain, equipment and vendor challenges as well as changing regulatory requirements, to name but a few of the issues the Company has confronted.”
Leading Light was going to be built about 35 miles off the coast of New Jersey. It was awarded a renewable energy certificate from the state in January 2024 and was expected to provide roughly 2.4 gigawatts of electricity to the grid, which would have made it one of the largest renewable energy projects in the country and enough, the developers said, to power a million homes.
That certificate, known as an OREC, came with state financial assistance but also required developers Invenergy and energyRe to meet specific project milestones. Yet in addition to facing supply chain issues both companies had been unable to pursue federal permitting because of the Trump administration’s policy on offshore wind. And for months, they had submitted extension after extension to filing a motion binding it legally to complete construction of the project.
But now Leading Light is dead for the foreseeable future. “The company regrets this decision but does not see a pathway forward for the LLW Project on this OREC award and looks forward to the future for possible solicitations,” Foley stated.
This means New Jersey’s offshore wind horizons are incredibly bleak, especially after Shell dumped its stake in the defunct Atlantic Shores offshore wind project last month. Almost all of New Jersey’s offshore wind contracts have now fallen apart, including those for the Ocean Wind, and there is little chance of Attentive Energy receiving federal permits under the current administration.
Only one project is now set to be operational off the New Jersey coast: Empire Wind. But it’s unclear if Empire will ever provide electrons to New Jersey itself since its only contract is with New York regulators. (It remains to be seen whether Empire’s developer, Equinor, will bid into New Jersey’s markets for the project’s second phase.)
It’s also important to consider the timing. On Nov. 4, New Jersey voters were swept up in a blue wave – but one that didn’t really hit many coastal areas, where a large majority of voters remained in the GOP camp. Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli focused enormously on fighting offshore wind during his campaign, going so far as to sell anti-wind merch. So one can imagine a world where the coastline was part of a blue wave and an offshore wind developer wouldn’t immediately pull out of the state, but that’s not a world we live in.
When reached for comment on whether the project might still be built, Invenergy simply said, “Please refer to the filing.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect comment from Invenergy and clarify Attentive Energy’s current status.
Emily Pontecorvo contributed to this article.